An Exposition of Kant’s, Arendt’s, and Mill’s Moral Philosophy

Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological ethics. His theory offers a view of morality based on the principle of good will and duty. According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy. In her case study: “The Accused and Duties of a Law-Abiding Citizen”, Arendt examines how Adolf Eichmann’s actions conformed to Kant’s moral precepts but also how they ran of afoul to his conception of duty. In contrast, John Stuart Mill adopts a teleological view of moral philosophy. He exposes his view of consequentialism and utilitarianism to argue that an action is morally right only to the extent that it maximizes the aggregate happiness of all parties involved regardless of the motive. In the present paper, I will expose Kant’s moral precepts and the importance of duty in his Deontological principles. Then, I will evaluate Arendt’s report on Adolf Eichmann to analyze the ways in which his actions were in accordance to or against Kant’s moral philosophy. I will conclude my discussion with an evaluation of Mill’s approach to morality in order to examine the differences between his teleological philosophy and Kant’s ethical principles.
Kant’s moral philosophy is based on the categorical imperative (CI), good will, and duty. According to the CI, it is an absolute necessity, a command that humans should accord with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without any concerns about the consequences or conditions of their actions. This concept can also be expressed in systematic terms by the two following formulations. The first form of the categorical imperative prescribes that…...

Similar Documents

...A Moral Program for Myself as a Person and Professional
A Moral Program for Myself as a Person and Professional
Education is the key pillar of the modern world. Through education, we achieve a personal sensation of achievement and sole satisfaction. However, what lessons do we draw from the classes and lessons that we attend? In addition, are there ways in which we can apply the knowledge and the information we learn from the class and use it to shape our personal and professional lives? Throughout the eight weeks that I have enrolled in philosophy 415, I have pondered how I will use the information I learn and the knowledge I gain to better myself. In this regard, I need to better myself in both my personal and professional capacities. Nevertheless, in order to attain this betterment, I need to come up with a moral program for my personal and professional lives. Whether it is applying the ethical principles of Aristotle, Kant and Mill, or combating moral illiteracy within my department, I plan to use my newfound information to its greatest potential. Therefore, this article first elucidates on the moral program that I would implement in my professional life as a nurse. Consequently, the second part is on a program fitted for my personal life as a single mother to a four-year-old child.
Out of all the philosophers that we studied during the course, Aristotle's virtue ethics is the most suitable theory for my profession. According to Solomon......

...Philosophy Matrix Metaphysics, Moral, Social, Political Paper
Metaphysics, Morals, Social, and the Political philosophy's are four major philosophical areas of inquiry. Learning about the historical development of each school of thought, who the main contributors were, and what the primary issues are in each field. Increases the knowledge and understanding of the culture and its philosophy.
Study of Existence
Metaphysics is the focus of the nature of existence, reality, and who we are. Metaphysics has new meaning in an age of ever changing and globally interconnectedness. The questions and how we answer them are now first and foremost in whether or not humanity can survive and flourish on this planet in a healthy and civilized manner (Metaphysics, 2011).
Principal and Cause
According to Aristotle there are four different kinds of cause, it is important to note that he claims that one and the same thing can be a cause in more than one sense. As he puts it, “form, mover, and telos often coincide”. And in De Animahe is perfectly explicit that the soul, which is the form or essence of a living thing, “is a cause in three of the ways we have distinguished” efficient, formal, and final (Cohen, 2011).
Right From Wrong
Learning right from wrong is something we pick up early in life. If someone were to say lying is wrong, then it may be attributed as a wrongness to an act lying. Whether lying has that property is an objective matter, thereby the statement is......

...Kant’s view
Life, an unexplained phenomenon is something most of us take for granted and don’t understand its true value as much as we should is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and capacity for growth. There are two major facts about life, not everyone lives but everybody dies. Life is lived and valued differently from individuals who live life according to Ethical and Morality Theories established longtime ago from religious philosophers, philosophers and scholars who claim to understand the way we as “humans” should live, and set fourth curtain rules and guidelines for us to live by. Many would object to these morality views but some of these views have stood the test of time and are still being used today. One philosophers views in particular, Immanuel Kant. He’s known to be one of the greatest philosophers known to man. Kant had his own set of ethical and morality theories that many people still follow today. Which brings us to this case and point, is it ever morally permissible to do a morally wrong action in order for the greater good? I will be discussing Kant’s and my moral views on this particular issue.
Immanuel Kant was known for his critique of judgment. Kant said that “human beings have “an intrinsic worth” or dignity” that make the valuable “above all price” Rachel’s (page136). Kant believed that “all of our duties can be derived from one ultimate principle, which he called the Categorical Imperative” Rachel’s (Page137).......

...QUEEN OF APOSTLES PHILOSOPHY CENTRE JINJA (PCJ)
CRITIQUE OF THE NOTION OF AUTONOMY IN KANT’S MORAL PHILOSOPHY
AN UNDER GRADUATE DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE INSTITUTE OF ETHICS AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF UGANDA MARTYRS UNIVERSITY (UMU) NKOZI, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY
BISIMWA MUNYALI EVARISTE
MARCH 2011
1
DEDICACE This work is dedicated in a special way to: My ever loving and caring God, My family and the community of the Missionaries of Africa.
2
DECLARATION I………………………………………………………..have read the rules of Uganda Martyrs University on plagiarism and hereby state that this work is my own.
It has not been submitted anywhere else for any qualification.
I have acknowledged the secondary sources used in this work.
NAME OF STUDENT…………………………………………………………. SIGNATURE…………………………………………………………………… DATE: ……………………………………………………………………………
SUPERVISOR………………………………………………………………….. SIGNATURE…………………………………………………………………… DATE: …………………………………………………………………………..
3
ABSTRACT The importance of a philosophical study dealing with moral issues, especially the principle of autonomy is indisputably great. It is a common agreement that morality is located within the scope of duty. Kant corroborates this held agreement by stating the categorical imperative which every human is obliged to act upon. He conceived this categorical imperative as the moral law which all those who claim to be moral beings have to live on. However, he also affirmed...

...Kant’s moral argument focuses on the notion that God must exist to provide structure to the moral universe. Technically he did not believe that is was possible to prove the existence of God through rational or empirical means. It is important to outline two key ideas before explaining the details of the moral argument. These ideas centre around his assumptions of the universe: that the universe was fair; and that the world around us is fundamentally rational. He begins with the unspoken assumption that the world is fair, owing to the dominance of the enlightenment belief that the universe was fundamentally knowable through reason. It is important to note that Kant began a new way of looking at knowledge. He believed that we could know the world through reason in a prior synthetic way. This was a complete change from how the world had been view previously and was known as Kant’s Copernican revolution. In essence Kant believed in two separate worlds of knowledge: noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. The noumenal world is the world as it truly is without being observed. It is fundamentally unknowable because the act of observation changes the very thing that we observe. It is as though human beings have a specific set of spectacles that cannot be taken off and like the proverbial rose tinted ones they change our perception of the world around us. This personalised view of the universe is the phenomenal world. However, what is key to explaining Kant’s moral argument is the fact......

...informant who led U.S. forces to Saddam wasn't giving information willingly, why did he give any information at all? It is hard to avoid thinking about the dirty word that everyone is too polite to mention, the "T-word": torture? They say it was just "interrogation," which is what torture lite is. Things like bags over the head, tight handcuffs, no light, no food or bathroom, endless shouting or blaring music or noise, bits of light violence. And, of course, the constant mental and emotional torture of fearing that serious physical pain might start taking place at any moment. But, is it morally correct to use these techniques on an individual just for the sole purpose of obtaining information? The following paper will go in-depth on the moral standpoints of torture lite.
From an Act Utilitarian viewpoint, torture lite can indeed be justified. I would say that an individual act of torture lite is justified when it will clearly produce more good than harm. Weigh the suffering of the victim against the odds of either deterring great amounts of crime or obtaining information vital to avoid large amounts of suffering for the greater good. Basically, this act can surely benefit a society just by placing a little bit of suffering on someone to better the society as a whole. This is how torture lite can be justified.
On the other side, torture lite is condemned by Rule Utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism can be seen as a practice rule, which states that even though in some or......

...Future Financial problem of Social Security and Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle
Perhaps one of the most pressing issues that confront the future of the Social Security is its financial health. The recent 2014 Social Security report indicates that both the retirement and social security trust fund of the agency threatens to become exhausted by 2033. According to the report, while the retirement program of the Social security is fully funded for the next 19 years, its surplus fund will start to deplete as the retirements of the baby boomer accelerate. At which point, the agency’s current revenue would only be enough to sustain only 77 percent of the retirement benefits; while its disability program can only accommodate 75 percent of its promised benefits. Coming from this context, it is therefore of utmost importance for the Congress to enact reforms in order to put the agency’s programs back into balance (Kurtzleben 1).
The pending financial problem of Social Security brings into mind the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Mill clearly endorses the concept of utilitarianism that asserts that duty or right action is to be defined in terms of the promotion of happiness. One of the main principles of Mill centers on the idea of “greatest-happiness” which asserts that an individual must always act in such a way that the action will produce the greatest aggregate happiness among everyone. Under his conception of utilitarian, the acts are classified as either morally right or......

...Kant’s Moral Theory: The Flaws
One of the most controversial aspects of Kant’s moral philosophy is his theory regarding the concept of duty. Duty is the moral necessity to perform actions for no other reason than to obey the dictates of a higher authority without any selfish inclination. Immanuel Kant states that the only moral motivation is a devotion to duty. The same action can be seen as moral if it is done for the sake of one’s duty but also as not moral (Kant distinguished between immoral and not moral) and simply praise-worthy if it is done out of inclination. Thus, to have moral worth, an action must be done from duty.
This theory has been deemed an anti-concept i.e. an inconsistent concept that obliterates other cardinal concepts. In this case, duty destroys rationality. Ayn Rand goes as far as to say duty is “a metaphysical and psychological killer”, thereupon hindering a man’s capacity to act according to his will and reason. Kant’s philosophy of duty is self-refuting. It relies on the rationality of humans and yet its authoritarian deontology deprives man of his rationality and confines him to strictly objective speculation and limited mental processing. If one strives only to pursue one’s duty and to live whereby the rules of an unaccountable authority take precedence over one’s own judgment, one cannot have the opportunity to be rational.
The objectivist view criticises the practicality of Kant’s theory and negates the existence of any such thing as......

...Quiz #1
Questions
1. Give full and logical descriptions of the philosophy.
Biography is optional.
2. Give any comparison you consider interesting.
Pro/Con Philosophers
3. Your personal opinion about this philosophy.
David Hume
1
Biography
1711 – 1776
Scottish Philosopher
Self-Proclaimed Agnostic
Did not believe we could answer the question, “Does God exist?”
Exiled and moved to France
Leading thinker in European enlightenment
Wrote treaties on ethics, knowledge, religion, and human nature.
Was called, “Good David”, remarkably kind and humorous, or the Scottish Skeptic
Essay, “Of Self-Love”
Essay, “Moral Distinction not Derived from Reason”
All action is motivated by selfishness, or “self-love”.
This claim in psychological egoism is at odds with our regular experiences with people
In which we act with “such affections as love, friendship, compassion, and gratitude”.
Reducing things down to one cause may work in natural sciences, but it is unnecessary and
inaccurate in the human sciences.
In “Moral Distinctions not Derived from Reason”, argues that morality is not based solely on
pure rationality, but on our “sentiments,”
Sentiments – Our feelings of acceptance or disapproval.
Thus, moral thinking is also moral *feeling*
Supported by examining cases of moral “turpitude”
1. Incest
2. Murder
3. Ingratitude
“To [even] the most careless observer, there appear to be such......

...Applying Moral Philosophies to Business Ethics
Moral philosophies - present guidelines for determining how conflicts in human interests are to be settled and for optimizing mutual benefit of people living together in groups.
--There is no one correct way to resolve ethical issues in business.
-- Each type of philosophy has a distinct basis for deciding whether a particular action is right or wrong.
-- Ethics issues analyzed using different philosophical theories generally have the same appropriate outcome.
Role Morality — people have a moral responsibility to fulfill their role in the organization
Do employees have a moral responsibility to “do their jobs?” What are their responsibilities?
Do employers have a moral responsibility to “do their jobs?” What are their responsibilities?
How do employers handle conflicts in the different roles they perform? What if your superior wants you to carry out some responsibility, and your workgroup thinks this is unfair? What if some personal role conflicts with a work role? (Others roles include:
student, parent, child, organization member, etc.)
Moral Philosophy Perspectives
1. Teleology — egoism
- enlightened egoism
- utilitarianism
2. Deontology
3. Relativist Perspective
4. Virtue Ethics
I. Teleology — consequences (consequentialist theories)
egoism — right behavior is based on good consequences for the individual
enlightened egoism — some basic......

...
Cagayan State University
Tuguegarao City, Carig Campus
College of Arts and Sciences
“UTILITARIANISM”
A Term Paper in Philospohy 12 (Moral Philosophy)
SUBMITTED TO:
Karen Acoba
Instructor
SUBMITTED BY:
Joanne Marie B. Sanchez, BS BIO I – A
11:30 – 1:00 pm TTH
March, 2016
Introduction
“What is right and wrong?” Every day we ask that question, whether in simple situations like choosing a dress to wear in a party, or complicated ones like judging a supposed criminal. It guides our decisions, and helps to get better hold of our actions.
In the field of Philosophy, the rightness or wrongness of a moral action is also a vital topic. This topic is termed as Normative Ethics – The study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Theories like Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism are some of the Normative Ethics theories.
In this study, we will discuss about Utilitarianism. With the objectives of: simplifying a complicated Philosophical theory for students, and understanding deeply the principles of Utilitarianism.
Discussion
Utilitarianism is mainly characterized by two elements: happiness and consequentialism. Utilitarian happiness is the biggest happiness which (supposedly) every human being looks for. In utilitarianism everything useful...

...Moral Theory and Culture
Culture is a way of life; it guides beliefs, values, and attitudes. It identifies who one is. It defines the nature of relationships, and individual practices. The decision and actions one take is based upon culture. It is culture that is the building block of one’s moral beliefs. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the “Classical Theories of Morality” and the relevance of these theories to cultural identity.
Aristotle’s theory suggests that every action is aimed at some good and good is the object of these actions. Aristotle defines the good as happiness (Kucukuysal and Beyhan, 2011). Happiness and good are synonymous across cultures with living well. However, culture defines the meaning of happiness at different points in ones life. Ones perception of happiness can be quite different from another’s (Scalet and Arthur, 2014). For example, one may define happiness through wealth and success and another may define happiness, not on the material things they own but the family they have and the choices they have made through life. Aristotle also suggests happiness conforms to goodness of virtue (Kucukuysal and Beyhan, 2011). To be happy and good, one must make the right choices. Virtue is taught and learned. The ability to define happiness and decide what is virtuous is an individual choice based upon life teachings and experience. In order to make someone else happy, you must be happy with yourself. Life’s choices, treatment of others should be......

...In both Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, the authors give several strong, well structured arguments on the composition of ethics. Largely, their works help to draw focus to two different explanations of what makes an action morally just as opposed to morally unjust through essentially opposite viewpoints. Despite a key difference between their philosophies, Kant and Mill contribute to an overall picture of the historical ethical argument.
Chronologically, the first major philosopher, Immanuel Kant, presents an argument that is based upon solely “a priori” knowledge, or rather knowledge that does not come from experience. Kant explains that because we are all rational beings, we are able to separate ourselves from our current human condition and use our own ability to reason to see a broad picture of what is morally acceptable to others. Similarly, Kant finds that the only thing which is good without limitation is a good will; that is, it is the intention of an action that determines the moral validity of any claim, not the effects both foreseen and actual. Kant connects this idea of morality to the claim that humans should act out of duty instead of just what is according to duty. The difference between these two ideas, Kant argues, is that “according to duty” is acting in the right way only because of the negative consequences associated with not performing a morally correct action whereas “from duty” refers to......